As in the past, hunters have consistently found themselves in certain types of terrain where there is little or no cover available in which to conceal themselves effectively. In certain wilderness areas and especially during the fall and winter seasons, the trees are not large enough to hang a portable tree stand, and the brush is too thin in which to hide. In such areas, hunters have often been forced to create camouflage barriers using materials from the immediate area. However, this can result in the hunters changing the local landscape. When hunters attempt to do so in areas favored by various animals indigenous to those wilderness areas (i.e., mature whitetails), such changes in the landscape are easily picked out by such wary animals. Thus, a problem exists in how hunters can effectively conceal themselves in any type of cover and blend in so as to be virtually invisible.
There exist today various types of camouflage clothing and portable blinds available on the market today. Among them are the camouflage devices disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,506,467 to Strung, U.S. Pat. No. 4,773,437 to Glutting, U.S. Pat. No. 5,010,909 to Cleveland and U.S. Pat. No. 5,062,234 to Green. These and other types of camouflage are intended to effectively blend the hunter in with different types of cover provided that the camouflage pattern blends in and has the same pattern and colors as the immediate area. However, with devices such as those of Glutting, Cleveland and Green, there is nothing on the market today that effectively works in all types of cover and terrain without changing camouflage patterns. Rather, existing types of camouflage are limited in that they are typically designed to be most effective in only one type of terrain, and only nominally effective in a few others.
With devices such as that of Strung, the mirrored finish of the panels is designed to only reflect objects and colors in the terrain immediately adjacent the panels. The curved shape of those panels results in a distorted reflection of the immediate terrain, while the conical shape of the enclosure causes those distortions to vary in degree along its surface from top to bottom. These optical distortions have been found to scare and/or repulse wildlife from approaching. As a result, devices similar to that of Strung cannot produce true and effective camouflaging reflections of the terrain.
Camouflage devices such as those mentioned above that claim to be versatile and effective in various terrains may often require cumbersome amounts of equipment, and large amounts of time to set up initially. For example, the device of Strung alone requires that several flexible panels be connected to one another using channels on-site in order to form a conical enclosure. An overhead cover having a relatively rigid structure must then be placed on top of the conical enclosure. Even more, these camouflage devices supposedly adaptable to different types of terrain can require inordinate amounts of time to adapt them from one terrain type to another. Devices such as those of Glutting, Cleveland and Green would all require that their camouflage materials be removed from their mountings in order to adapt them from one camouflage pattern to another. Thus, a problem persists in that no camouflage device currently exists that will truly adapt to various types of terrain, while at the same time being easy to use and set up.
Existing types of camouflage devices also severely limit the ability of the hunter or some other user to see beyond the camouflage. Devices such as Glutting, Cleveland and Green only disclose the use of camouflage materials that are opaque, or at best translucent. The device of Strung provides no means for the user to effectively see out of the enclosure without compromising the camouflaging effects of the enclosure.
Some existing devices even require the user to limit his/her movement while using the device in order for it to be effective. Unnecessary or excess movement when using a conventional device may result in the user being seen despite being camouflaged, or at worst in the camouflage device's setup being destroyed. This is most evident in devices such as those of Strung and Cleveland where their enclosures have very restricted amounts of room available. Inherently, these restrictions severely limit the range of activities of the hunter or other users when using the device. Thus, a problem exists in that current camouflage devices strictly limit the freedom of movement of the user. This problem in turn compromises the overall usefulness of the device.